fourthmeal

It is looking like my budget will fit either a 95-97 with ~110-150k miles, OR a 98+ with 150k+ miles. I've only kept and bookmarked the clean and visually well-kept examples within a 300 mile radius of me, so let's assume that any car found will be in good shape and not need any immediate work to make "right."

I'm torn between the looks of a 95-97 and a 98+, primarily because I think the front end of the older one looks just so nice, but the newer one has better headlights and obviously it is newer.

I have noticed more reliability issues with the newer models relative to the 95-97 years, according to my company's research. I wonder if it matters much given that in a decade or so almost anything can break, especially wear and tear items as the car ages, of course.

So, what's the general consensus? The extra power and extra gear in the transmission worth it?

renato902

Now, I could seem biased if I say that the 95-97 would be the better option. I don't think the extra gear is worth it. If you do end up getting the 95-97 LS, make sure the timing belts have been done b/c at that mileage, original timing belts can be a problem. A downside of the 95-97 is that the engine is interference meaning that if your belts let go, you CAN potentially damage your engine (esp. your valves). This can cost a small fortune to fix. Despite these problems, I still think that the 95-97 would be the wiser choice aesthetically. Actually this post got me thinking I'm sort of contradicting myself Bottom line; my 95 LS has been very nice to me so far. I think you'd enjoy having one aswell. In the end, the question remains; is it really worth it to get a 98-00? You're gonna have to choose that, both cars have their pros and cons but by the same token, both cars are EXCELLENT and are a real joy to drive, they're truly epic motorway cruisers

Cheers!

curepunx

iTrader: (3)

I don't own an LS from either years but...
from my understanding....
the 98-00 has VVT-i, a bit roomier, more torque, eagle eye revised headlights with HID and a few minor upgrades
versus the 95-97 era.

But...i myself do like the 95-97 generation a lot.
Like he said above...either way, both engines are interference so please check for probably the most important maintenance issue...the timing belt.


Goodluck!

PS: These cars are built to last, so with proper maintenance, im sure the car will keep runing above 300K miles.

fourthmeal

Yeah, good points all around.

The 98+ is heavier, so a lot of that extra power might be absorbed by the ~200 lbs difference.

I'm certain that I'd be replacing the TB (and subsequently all the important bits the go with it) on almost all of the cars I've seen, with exception of course of the ones that I find dealer records on. I'm going to cross that bridge once I get closer to purchasing an actual car, however. Right now, I'm trying to judge if I should hunt down the 98+ or go a little older instead.

I just love the 95-97 bodywork. I like angular shapes more so than round and flowing ones. Example, I think Starion/Conquest cars are gorgeous and I like Mk3 Supras over MkIV (aesthetically speaking.) It is just a preference of mine.


BTW, in another thread I made, we found out definitively with PD offering incontrovertible proof that 95+ have interference timing belts, despite what Gates belt company says in their files. So, either way I go I have to live with it.

steveski

I like my 95 however the 98+ front end is also very cool. Mileage is not a huge issue as long as records are good. The 98+ in addition to Vvti and 4th gear you get better seats, HID and many more little things. Either way the only exterior difference to me is the front clip and slightly different tail lights.

Yeah the TB is the same on both - no biggie since it is every 100k miles

fourthmeal

For instance, look at this beauty:

http://www.cars.com/go/search/detail...5&aff=national

Its labeled wrong of course.

Schnitz

iTrader: (5)

For that price and that mileage jump on it. It's a steal. If you don't sure someone else that reads this thread is going to.

fourthmeal

Well I don't have that much saved YET, so they are more than welcome to do so. If I were ready you can bet I would have kept it under wraps.

There will be more, I think.

BLKonBLK98

if it was me i would look for a 97 coach edition. i also prefer the 95-97 front to the 98+, plus i like anything "special".

i wasn't always this way though. i used to hate the 90-94 and 95-97 front ends. the 98+ front ends are nice too, but kind of look like an afterthought (which they are) on the ucf20 body.

fourthmeal

I put a couple feelers out there in case some dealers were willing to finance in-house (got about 1/2 of the total saved already), so we'll see. It is interesting to see your change in opinion blkonblk98. I actually felt exactly the same for a bit. I don't like 90-94's because it is a little too square, and the reliability problems are worse (speaking strictly from the research my company does.)

The coach edition is neat, but I'm not finding those around my area currently. I saw one once upon a time, but I think it sold in a day on craigslist. I gave the guy props for the super-clean car (I think it was a 96, selling for $5400 with only ~140k miles in mint condition), but I'm sure it sold the next day to a happy buyer because the listing was gone.

I really like the silver and black one I posted, plus a Blackberry Pearl 95 from CA, and a 97 Platinum gray from AZ.

PureDrifter

iTrader: (10)

98 and make sure the TB was changed/gets changed. the 200lb weight difference doesnt mean much since the 98-00 accelerate to 60 over 1/2 a second quicker than the 95-97. but numbers alone dont make the difference, having come from a '95 my '99 is LOADS faster in EVERY WAY than the '95.

BLKonBLK98

i'm just not a fan of the bright silver lower, although i've never seen one like that in person so maybe it's the pics.

gmacrae

I think i do still prefer the 95-97 front, given that neither of them look "late model"

Still, if i were in your shoes at the moment, i think i'd take a slightly higher mileage 98+ over a 95-97 because of the engine/trans. The extra low down torque of the VVT engine would be nice for towing the boat. The 98+ front end does still look nice if the car is slammed on some decent wheels. As much as i like the look of the 95-97, it gets on my nerves when people confuse it with the 89-94's - with the 98+ cars, there's no confusion.

Either will be a great car, and i'm not saying i'd bother replacing my 95 with a 98, ill be waiting a couple years till i've got the $ for an 04+

The cars are the same size, i doubt the weight difference (in reality) is anything worth mentioning, (lets face it, they're all whales - and its not supposed to be a sports car).

Happy hunting

jz4203

Tough call...but either way there's no wrong answer. I own a `96 LS400 with 217K mikes (purchased w/ 78K miles) and it's the best car I've ever owned (except in the winter), It gets 24-25 mpg and drives like a dream. I love the looks better than the `98+. I also have a `98 GS400 which is faster/quicker and gets 25-26 mpg. I bought that one w/ 156K miles and now i'm up to 239K. So for me, I'd probably go with the 98+, for the the extra gear but mainly the VSC which is a big deal in the winter. You're in Nevada, so I don't know your snow situation. But I drive the `98 with snow tires in winter without any issue, while the `96 sits, unless there's no snow or ice. Good luck with whatever you choose.

fourthmeal

LOL...Who has a boat?? You mean the car? You guys are silly about weight of this vehicle, a Pontiac G8 weighs more by a large margin, as does the Challenger, Charger, etc. Most modern cars weigh much closer to 2 tons than this car. This has just as much HP, though.